Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
B.P. Sinha, C.J., A.K. Sarkar, J.R. Mudholkar, K.C. Das Gupta, K. Subba Rao, K.N. Wanchoo, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, P.B. Gajendragadkar, Raghubar Dayal, S.K. Das and Syed Jaffer Imam

JUDGMENT

B.P. Sinha, C. J.

1. These appeals have been heard together only insofar as they involve substantial questions of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution, with particular reference to clause (3) of Article 20. This larger Bench was constituted in order to re-examine some of the propositions of law laid down by this Court in the case of M. P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra MANU/SC/0018/1954 : 1978(2)ELT287(SC) , because when one of these cases was heard by five of us, we felt that some of the propositions therein laid down may have been too widely stated, and, therefore, required to be re-stated with more particularity. We have not heard counsel for the parties on the merits of the orders passed by the Courts below, but have confined the discussions at the Bar, insofar as they had any bearing on the questions of law relating to the interpretation of clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution.

2. It is not necessary to state in any detail the facts of each of the cases now before us. We shall, therefore, state only so much of the facts as have occasioned calling in aid of the provisions of clause (3) of Article 20 of the Constitution. In the first case, namely, Criminal Appeal 146 of 1958, the State of Bombay is the appellant. The respondent was charged, alongwith another person, under section 302, read with section 34 of the I. P. C., as also under section 19(e) of the Indian Arms Act (XI of 1878). The Trial Court found him guilty of those charges and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under section 302, read with section 34 of the I. P. C. and to a term of two years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under the Arms Act. At the trial the identification of the respondent, as one of the two alleged culprits, was the most important question to........